This is a simulation of monetary flows for a business that uses Circular Money.

A detailed description of all model input parameters is available here. These are discussed further here and here.

Update 14 December 2015 (v2.5): correction to net output basis LCOE calculation, to include actual self power demand for wind, PV and batteries in place of "2015 reference" values.

Update 20 November 2015 (v2.4): levelised O&M costs now added for wind & PV, so that complete (less transmission-related investments) LCOE for wind and PV is calculated, for both gross and net output.

Update 18 November 2015 (v2.3: development of capital cost estimates for wind, PV and battery buffering, adding levelised capital cost per unit net output, for comparison with levelised capital cost per unit gross output. Levelised capital cost estimate has been substantially refined, bringing this into line with standard practice for capital recovery calculation. Discount rate is user adjustable.

Default maximum autonomy periods reduced to 48 hours for wind and 72 hours for PV.

Update 22 October 2015 (v2.2): added ramped introduction of wind and PV buffering capacity. Wind and PV buffering ramps from zero to the maximum autonomy period as wind and PV generated electricity increases as a proportion of overall electricity supply. The threshold proportion for maximum autonomy period is user adjustable. Ramping uses interpolation based on an elliptical curve between zero and the threshold proportion, to avoid discontinuities that produce poor response shape in key variables.

Update 23 September 2015 (v2.1): added capital investment calculation and associated LCOE contribution for wind generation plant, PV generation plant and storage batteries.

**This version (v2.0) includes refined energy conversion efficiency estimates, increasing the global mean efficiency, but also reducing the aggressiveness of the self-demand learning curves for all sources. The basis for the conversion efficiencies, including all assumptions relating to specific types of work & heat used by the economy, is provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

Conversion of self power demand to energy services demand for each source is carried out via a reference global mean conversion efficiency, set as a user input using the global mean conversion efficiency calculated in the model at the time of transition commencement (taken to be the time for which all EROI parameter values are defined. A learning curve is applied to this value to account for future improvement in self power demand to services conversion efficiency.**

The original "standard run" version of the model is available here.

The statement that there can be no economic activity without  energy and that fossil fuels are finite contrasts with the fact that money is not finite and can be created by governments via their central banks at zero marginal cost whenever needed.

An important fact about COAL, GAS and OIL (especially when produced via fracking) is that their net energy ratios are falling rapidly. In other words the energy needed to extract a given quantity of fossil fuels is constantly increasing. The falling ratio 'EROI' (Energy Return on Energy Invested ) provides yet another warning that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels to power our economies. In 1940 it took the energy of only one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today the energy of 1 barrel of oil will yield only 15. We cannot wait until the ratio falls to 1/1 before we invest seriously in alternative sources of energy, because by then industrial society as we know it doday will have ceased to exist. An EROI of 1:1 means that it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - oil production would simply stop! 

This is the original model version (v1.0) with default "standard run" parameter set: see detailed commentary here and here. As of 2 September 2015, ongoing development has now shifted to this version of the model.

The significance of reduced energy return on energy invested (EROI) in the transition from fossil fuel to renewable primary energy sources is often disputed by both renewable energy proponents and mainstream economists.​ This model illustrates the impact of EROI in large-scale energy transition using a system dynamics approach. The variables of primary interest here are: 1) net energy available to "the rest of the economy" as renewable penetration increases [Total final energy services out to the economy]; and 2) the size of the energy sector as a proportion of overall economic activity, treating energy use as a very rough proxy for size [Energy services ratio].
This model aggregates energy supply in the form of fuels and electricity as a single variable, total final energy services, and treats the global economy as a single closed system.
The model includes all major incumbent energy sources, and assumes a transition to wind, PV, hydro and nuclear generated electricity, plus biomass electricity and fuels. Hydro, biomass and nuclear growth rates are built into the model from the outset, and wind and PV emplacement rates respond to the built-in retirement rates for fossil energy sources, by attempting to make up the difference between the historical maximum total energy services out to the global economy, and the current total energy services out. Intermittency of PV and wind are compensated via Li-ion battery storage. Note, however, that seasonal variation of PV is not fully addressed i.e. PV is modeled using annual and global average parameters. For this to have anything close to real world validity, this would require that all PV capacity is located in highly favourable locations in terms of annual average insolation, and that energy is distributed from these regions to points of end use. The necessary distribution infrastructure is not included in the model at this stage.
It is possible to explore the effect of seasonal variation with PV assumed to be distributed more widely by de-rating capacity factor and increasing the autonomy period for storage.

This version of the model takes values for emplaced capacities of conventional sources (i.e. all energy sources except wind and PV) as exogenous inputs, based on data generated from earlier endogenously-generated emplaced capacities (for which emplacement rates as a proportion of existing installed capacity were the primary exogenous input).

A simple model of economic growth where a government taxes the economy, and spends it on capital and revenue goods.

This model describes the influences different taxes have on the behaviour in our society

Scratch build of a stock-flow consistent model of a closed economy, based on a current transactions matrix

A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

To maintain economic wealth (roads, hospitals, power lines, etc.) power needs to be consumed. The same applies to economic activity, since any activity requires the consumption of energy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the burning of fossil fuels was responsible for 79 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. So whilst economic activity takes place fossil fuels will be burned and CO2 emissions are unavoidable - unless we use exclusively renewable energy resources, which is not likely to occur very soon. However, the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will have negative consequences, such droughts, floods, crop failures, etc. These effects represent limits to economic growth. The CLD illustrates some of the more prominent negative feedback loops that act as a break on economic growth and wealth.  As the negative feedback loops (B1-B4) get stronger, an interesting question is, 'will a sharp reduction in economic wealth and unavoidable recession lead to wide-spread food riots and disturbances?'

Economic growth cannot go on forever, although politicians and most economist seem to think so. The activity involved in economic growth necessarily  generates entropy (disorder and environmental degradation). Entorpy in turn generates powerful negative feedback loops which will, as a response from nature, ensure that economic activity will eventually grind to a complete halt.  In these circumstances organised society cannot persist and will collapse. The negative feedback loops shown in this graph have already started to operate. The longer economic growth continues unabated, the more powerful these negative feedback loops will become. How long can economic growth continue before it is overwhelmed? It may not be very far in the future.

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube

Model in support of an article being written about Investment vs Austerity.

@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube

A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

Introduction;

This model shows COVID-19 outbreak in Burnie have some impact for local economy situation and government policy. The main government policy is lockdown during the spreading period which can help reduce the infected rate, and also increase the test scale to help susceptible confirm their situation.

Variables;

Infection rate, Death rate, Recovery rate, test rate, susceptible, immunity rate, economy growth rate

These variables are influenced by different situation.

When cases over 10, government will implement lockdown policy.

Conclusion;

When cases increase too much , they will influence the economic situation.

Interesting insights:

If the recover rate is higher, more people will recover from the disease. It seems to be a positive sign. However, it would lead to a higher number of recovered people and more susceptible. As a result, there would be more cases, and would have a negative impact on the economic growth. 

Peak oil will occur when it is too expensive to bring oil to the surface and not when reserves reach their limit. Companies must make a profit to be able to extract oil and stay in the oil business.  However, that endeavour is becoming more and more difficult because of diminishing returns. They have to dig ever deeper to get to the oil  at ever increasing costs, and the oil they find deep down is of a lesser quality.  We have now reached a point where the price needed by oil companies to make a profit and stay in business is far higher than the price  the market can bear. That price is probably about $ 100 per barrel - and rising every year! A market price o $ 100 will almost certainly cause a sharp recession and cause the price of oil to fall back beyond the point of profitability. For example, the combined profit of ExxonMobile, Chevron and Conocophillips fell from 80.4 billion in 2011 to only 3.7 billon in 2016 - see URL below. What the market can bear depends on the spending power of the mass of non-elite workers. The CLD shows the negative feedback loops that prevent oil prices to rise above the level of  affordability. If non-elite workers cannot afford the goods and services offered,  then there will be no demand for them and by extension for oil.  In this situation the market price will not the cover the cost that oil companies need to extract oil. Oil supplies will decline and so will economic activity!

https://srsroccoreport.com/the-blood-bath-continues-in-the-u-s-major-oil-industry/

A detailed description of all model input parameters is available here. These are discussed further here and here.

Update 29 June 2016 (v2.6): Added historical emplacement for wind and PV capacity. The maximum historical emplacement rates are then maintained from year 114/115 until the end of the model period. This acts as a base emplacement rate that is then augmented with the contribution made via the feedback control mechanism. Note that battery buffering commences only once the additional emplacement via the feedback controller kicks in. This means that there is a base capacity for both wind and PV for which no buffering is provided, slightly reducing the energy services required for wind and PV supplies, as well as associated costs. Contributions from biomass and nuclear have also been increased slightly, in line with the earlier intention that these should approximately double during the transition period. This leads to a modest reduction in the contributions required from wind and PV.

Added calculation of global mean conversion efficiency energy to services on primary energy basis. This involves making a compensation to the gross energy outputs for all thermal electricity generation sources. The reason for this is that standard EROI analysis methodology involves inclusion of energy inputs on a primary energy equivalent basis. In order to convert correctly between energy inputs and energy service inputs, the reference conversion efficiency must therefore be defined on a primary energy basis. Previously, this conversion was made on the basis of the mean conversion efficiency from final energy to energy services.

Update 14 December 2015 (v2.5): correction to net output basis LCOE calculation, to include actual self power demand for wind, PV and batteries in place of "2015 reference" values.

Update 20 November 2015 (v2.4): levelised O&M costs now added for wind & PV, so that complete (less transmission-related investments) LCOE for wind and PV is calculated, for both gross and net output.

Update 18 November 2015 (v2.3: development of capital cost estimates for wind, PV and battery buffering, adding levelised capital cost per unit net output, for comparison with levelised capital cost per unit gross output. Levelised capital cost estimate has been substantially refined, bringing this into line with standard practice for capital recovery calculation. Discount rate is user adjustable.

Default maximum autonomy periods reduced to 48 hours for wind and 72 hours for PV.

Update 22 October 2015 (v2.2): added ramped introduction of wind and PV buffering capacity. Wind and PV buffering ramps from zero to the maximum autonomy period as wind and PV generated electricity increases as a proportion of overall electricity supply. The threshold proportion for maximum autonomy period is user adjustable. Ramping uses interpolation based on an elliptical curve between zero and the threshold proportion, to avoid discontinuities that produce poor response shape in key variables.

Update 23 September 2015 (v2.1): added capital investment calculation and associated LCOE contribution for wind generation plant, PV generation plant and storage batteries.

**This version (v2.0) includes refined energy conversion efficiency estimates, increasing the global mean efficiency, but also reducing the aggressiveness of the self-demand learning curves for all sources. The basis for the conversion efficiencies, including all assumptions relating to specific types of work & heat used by the economy, is provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

Conversion of self power demand to energy services demand for each source is carried out via a reference global mean conversion efficiency, set as a user input using the global mean conversion efficiency calculated in the model at the time of transition commencement (taken to be the time for which all EROI parameter values are defined. A learning curve is applied to this value to account for future improvement in self power demand to services conversion efficiency.**

The original "standard run" version of the model is available here.

A detailed description of all model input parameters is available here. These are discussed further here and here.

Update 14 December 2015 (v2.5): correction to net output basis LCOE calculation, to include actual self power demand for wind, PV and batteries in place of "2015 reference" values.

Update 20 November 2015 (v2.4): levelised O&M costs now added for wind & PV, so that complete (less transmission-related investments) LCOE for wind and PV is calculated, for both gross and net output.

Update 18 November 2015 (v2.3: development of capital cost estimates for wind, PV and battery buffering, adding levelised capital cost per unit net output, for comparison with levelised capital cost per unit gross output. Levelised capital cost estimate has been substantially refined, bringing this into line with standard practice for capital recovery calculation. Discount rate is user adjustable.

Default maximum autonomy periods reduced to 48 hours for wind and 72 hours for PV.

Update 22 October 2015 (v2.2): added ramped introduction of wind and PV buffering capacity. Wind and PV buffering ramps from zero to the maximum autonomy period as wind and PV generated electricity increases as a proportion of overall electricity supply. The threshold proportion for maximum autonomy period is user adjustable. Ramping uses interpolation based on an elliptical curve between zero and the threshold proportion, to avoid discontinuities that produce poor response shape in key variables.

Update 23 September 2015 (v2.1): added capital investment calculation and associated LCOE contribution for wind generation plant, PV generation plant and storage batteries.

**This version (v2.0) includes refined energy conversion efficiency estimates, increasing the global mean efficiency, but also reducing the aggressiveness of the self-demand learning curves for all sources. The basis for the conversion efficiencies, including all assumptions relating to specific types of work & heat used by the economy, is provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

Conversion of self power demand to energy services demand for each source is carried out via a reference global mean conversion efficiency, set as a user input using the global mean conversion efficiency calculated in the model at the time of transition commencement (taken to be the time for which all EROI parameter values are defined. A learning curve is applied to this value to account for future improvement in self power demand to services conversion efficiency.**

The original "standard run" version of the model is available here.

This model simulates a COVID outbreak occurring at Burnie, Tasmania. It links the extent to the pandemic with governments intervention policies aiming to limit the spread of the virus. The other part of the model illustrates how will the COVID statistics and the government enforcement jointly influence the economic environment in the community. A number of variables are taken into account, indicating positive or negative relationship in the infection and the economy model respectively.

 

Assumptions

·         Government takes responsive actions when the number of acquired cases exceeds 10.

·         Government’s prompt actions, involving closure of the state border, lockdown within the city, plans on mandatory vaccination and testing, effectively control the infection status.

·         Economic activities are reduced due to stagnation in statewide tourism, closure of brick-and-mortar businesses, and increased unemployment rate, as results of government restrictions.

 

Insights

Government’s rapid intervention can effectively reduce the infected cases. The national vaccination rollout campaign raises vaccination rate in Australians, and particularly influence the death rate in the infection model. Please drag the slider of vaccination to a higher rate and run the model to compare the outcomes.

Although local economy is negatively affected by government restriction policies, consumer demand in online shopping and government support payments neutralize the negative impact on economy and maintain the level of economic activities when infections get controlled. 

This model explains the difference between Mountain bikes riding compared to logging in the Tasmanian forests.

Microeconomic measures can produce counterintuitive 'emergent' effects at the macro or systemic level. The commendable act of saving money by individuals during uncertain economic times has the perverse macroeconomic effect of making a recession  worse: in aggregate there will be less money available for spending, suppressing demand for goods and services. Economists call this effect 'the paradox of thrift'. Similarly, logical efforts by companies in such conditions to reduce their wage bill or their postponement of investment decisions will reduce spending in the economy  and deepen the economic downturn.

What can be done to counteract this harmful dynamic? The missing spending can be replaced by government spending: governments have it within their power to effectively counter economic downturns!